Subject: [bmwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-bmwg-protection term-06 and meth-05

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:24:57 -0400

BMWG,

This message begins a Last call on the Sub-IP Protection terms and methods.

http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-term/
http://tools.ietf.org/wg/bmwg/draft-ietf-bmwg-protection-meth/

The Last Call with end on July 31, 2009.

We've been discussing this topic in BMWG almost as long as I
been chairman.  Two original authors of the terms had to leave
us, but others stepped-up and have brought this work to a
good state of completeness.  In fact, I've recently shared our
terms draft with some colleagues in the MEF who were quite impressed.

Please weigh-in on whether or not these Internet-Drafts
should be given to the Area Directors and IESG for consideration and
publication as an Informational RFCs.  Send your comments
to this list or [email-masked].

Al
bmwg chair

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:23:15 -0400

At 02:24 PM 7/2/2009, Al Morton wrote:

This message begins a Last call
on the Sub-IP Protection terms and methods.

Chair's comments on the term-06 and meth05 drafts,

Al

bmwg chair

There seems to be a consistent revision of the

Security sections (6 and 9 in term and meth),

also seen in the IGP drafts:

6. Security Considerations

Documents of this type do not directly affect the security
of

Internet or corporate networks as long as benchmarking is
not

performed on devices or systems connected to production
networks.

Security threats and how to counter these in SIP and the
media

layer is discussed in RFC3261, RFC3550, and RFC3711 and
various

other drafts. This document attempts to formalize a set
of

common methodology for benchmarking performance of
failover

mechanisms in a lab environment.

SIP?

Please use the "standard" paragraphs:

Benchmarking
activities as described in this memo are limited to

technology characterization using controlled stimuli in a
laboratory

environment, with dedicated address space and the
constraints

specified in the sections above.

The benchmarking network topology will be an independent
test setup

and MUST NOT be connected to devices that may forward the
test

traffic into a production network, or misroute traffic to
the test

management network.

Further, benchmarking is performed on a
"black-box" basis, relying

solely on measurements observable external to the
DUT/SUT.

Special capabilities SHOULD NOT exist in the DUT/SUT
specifically for

benchmarking purposes.  Any implications for network
security arising

from the DUT/SUT SHOULD be identical in the lab and in
production

networks.

Also:

The terms draft should probably be using the pre-5378
disclaimer.

The meth draft has

** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the
longest one
being 2 characters in excess of 72.

which seems to be the line:

Expires: September 8,
2009
S. Vapiwala

---

From: Eric Brendel <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:45:11 -0400

I have been following these drafts for a few years now and believe  
they are ready to be sent to  the area directors for publication as  
RFCs.

On Jul 2, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Al Morton wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> bmwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/bmwg

---

From: Al Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2009 12:27:01 -0400

I've collected a few comments this week,
but it will take another day or so to get them typed-up
and circulated on the list.

I'm hoping to finish this task on the flight home...

Al